Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
John Beatson et al., Respondents, v. James W. Elwell et al., Appellants, 1872 — 49 N.Y. 678 · caselaw · US
General
John Beatson et al., Respondents, v. James W. Elwell et al., Appellants
49 N.Y. 678·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
John Beatson et al., Respondents, v. James W. Elwell et al., Appellants.
(Argued May 28, 1872;
decided June 4, 1872.)
Action to recover back advances on freight. In October, 1856, plaintiffs chartered of defendants the bark Satellite, then lying at Marseilles, for a voyage to Akyab and back to Europe for a cargo of rice, at a stipulated freight, payable on the delivery of the cargo, “ less advances made to master at port of loading.” The charter had these words: “ Gash, for ship’s ordinary disbursements, to be advanced the master by charterer’s agents at port of loading, free of interest or commission, but subject to insurance.”
The bark arrived at Akyab, and during the spring and summer of 1857 the charterer’s agents advanced to the master for his ordinary disbursements the money in question in this action. The bark sailed on her homeward voyage in August or September, 1857, and put into Calcutta, where the master, without authority from the plaintiffs, and without any necessity therefor, sold the whole of the then cargo of rice, and broke up the voyage. Plaintiffs’ agents at Calcutta filed a bill against the master, and obtained the proceeds of the rice sold.
Held, plaintiffs were entitled to recover the advances; that the acceptance of the proceeds of the sale did not affect this right.
H. Qi Benedict for the appellant.
Aug. F. Smith for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folgeb, J.,]
Folgeb, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.